Colonising Mars is unlikely and a bad idea(theconversation.com)
theconversation.com
Colonising Mars is unlikely and a bad idea
https://theconversation.com/sorry-elon-musk-but-its-now-clear-that-colonising-mars-is-unlikely-and-a-bad-idea-100964
23 comments
I thought there was one clear assertion in there:
1) Previously, terraforming was thought to be possible, given there being enough trapped greenhouse gasses to establish an atmosphere
2) Recently, it was shown that there is not enough trapped greenhouse gasses to establish an atmosphere
3) Therefore, terraforming Mars is seen as far less possible (or alternatively, would require much more advanced technology) than before.
1) Previously, terraforming was thought to be possible, given there being enough trapped greenhouse gasses to establish an atmosphere
2) Recently, it was shown that there is not enough trapped greenhouse gasses to establish an atmosphere
3) Therefore, terraforming Mars is seen as far less possible (or alternatively, would require much more advanced technology) than before.
We've long known that we need more nitrogen. One idea is to use ammonia asteroids, which do double duty as a greenhouse gas ...
http://www.users.globalnet.co.uk/~mfogg/zubrin.htm
http://www.users.globalnet.co.uk/~mfogg/zubrin.htm
The point that the author is (not very well) making for the “second stipulation” you reference is that if we showed up carelessly we could contaminate existing life and we couldn’t be sure that the life really existed on Mars before we got there if we weren’t careful.
Searching for life robotically would take centuries not "years or decades." And the idea that human colonization will wait until we're sure we're not disturbing nature is a non-starter. We'll go to the moon when we are technically and financially able.
And nothing in the article indicates why terraforming is unfeasible, except the caveat of "with available technology."
And nothing in the article indicates why terraforming is unfeasible, except the caveat of "with available technology."
This reads like a piece that is just meant to garner attention since Tesla is high up in the news cycle (as usual).
The primary points the article raises are:
* Potential life after recent detection of suspected liquid deep water
* Not enough reserves of gases remaining to eventually thicken the atmosphere
* Lack of a magnetic field to preserve the remaining and new atmosphere if created
1. Life has always been possible on Mars. The discovery of liquid water improves this but doesn’t affect possible colonization efforts. Short term, people will be setting up to survive either on or near the surface. It will be important to stay away from such areas except for study, but that doesn’t preclude human settlement efforts.
2. Terraforming in any form is a long term (centuries) goal. The state of the atmosphere won’t degrade in anymore significant way in the mean time. There are more than enough resources in the solar system to import material if that ever becomes a goal for Martians.
3. There are proposals already for satellites in Lagrange points between Mars and the Sun to generate artificial magnetic fields to slow down and prevent the stripping of the atmosphere. By the time technology like this is required, millions of people will already be living there for at least a century or more.
So overall the gist of the article would be like telling colonists to the Western Hemisphere in the 1500’s that it’s not worth trying because building a highway across the continent is impossible with current technology. While true at the time, there was no need for such a long term goal back then and wasn’t for centuries.
Plus one thing about Mars is that no one’s there to displace. Scientifically I care a lot about planetary protection and discovering if life exists there, but that is ultimately less important than colonizing Mars. It’s not like it’s going to spring complex life on its own and we would ruin those chances. It’s a planet’s worth of gravity and natural resources that aren’t going to do anything on their own.
* Potential life after recent detection of suspected liquid deep water
* Not enough reserves of gases remaining to eventually thicken the atmosphere
* Lack of a magnetic field to preserve the remaining and new atmosphere if created
1. Life has always been possible on Mars. The discovery of liquid water improves this but doesn’t affect possible colonization efforts. Short term, people will be setting up to survive either on or near the surface. It will be important to stay away from such areas except for study, but that doesn’t preclude human settlement efforts.
2. Terraforming in any form is a long term (centuries) goal. The state of the atmosphere won’t degrade in anymore significant way in the mean time. There are more than enough resources in the solar system to import material if that ever becomes a goal for Martians.
3. There are proposals already for satellites in Lagrange points between Mars and the Sun to generate artificial magnetic fields to slow down and prevent the stripping of the atmosphere. By the time technology like this is required, millions of people will already be living there for at least a century or more.
So overall the gist of the article would be like telling colonists to the Western Hemisphere in the 1500’s that it’s not worth trying because building a highway across the continent is impossible with current technology. While true at the time, there was no need for such a long term goal back then and wasn’t for centuries.
Plus one thing about Mars is that no one’s there to displace. Scientifically I care a lot about planetary protection and discovering if life exists there, but that is ultimately less important than colonizing Mars. It’s not like it’s going to spring complex life on its own and we would ruin those chances. It’s a planet’s worth of gravity and natural resources that aren’t going to do anything on their own.
Really terraforming Mars in itself is peripheral to if we can colonize it. Creating a vast possibility subterranean "bubble-city" is technically also a possibility that would reduce the needed gases by orders of magnitude. It would probably also call for a lot of design work to be psychologically tolerable to its residents long term. The why bother remains the same however - unlikely to pay off directly in itself but the research from trying will likely have other applications. Emergency backup for humanity is likely the biggest "practical" reason.
Technically we could theoretically recreate a magnetosphere and import gases from other sources but calling it recordbreakingly expensive would be a massive understatement. Even attempting it calls for a degree of megalomania.
Technically we could theoretically recreate a magnetosphere and import gases from other sources but calling it recordbreakingly expensive would be a massive understatement. Even attempting it calls for a degree of megalomania.
Honestly, I see no point in colonising Mars when there are still places like the Antarctica and ocean floor which are, with all the difficulties, much more hospitable and easier to reach.
Article mentions nothing about why it's a bad idea...
I didn't even realize that. I guess that with hopes of finding new life at their highest ever, we wouldn't want to contaminate that (if that's the right way to say it).
I'm not sure that is the right way to see it. If we did find life on Mars would that mean humans could never travel there? I don't so. More than likely we need to transplant Earth life to Mars for large scale terraforming.
Let's get to Mars first before worrying about whether colonizing it is feasible.
The part that I've been asking myself for years, is how do you create an atmosphere without (or almost without, can't remember) a magnetic field. Is it possible or we would have to generate one?
> While it is true that the solar wind has stripped Mars of much of its original atmosphere (due to the lack of the planet's magnetic field), and that any man-made atmosphere on Mars would eventually be dissipated by the solar wind - the speed at which this occurs is measured over geological time frames - on the scale of tens, if not hundreds of millions of years. If humanity were to create an artificial, life-conducive atmosphere on Mars, any atmospheric output due to economic activity (CO2 + other gases) would easily exceed any atmospheric losses. Thus, the atmosphere would be stable.
From ... https://www.reddit.com/r/SpaceX/wiki/faq/mars#wiki_what_will...
From ... https://www.reddit.com/r/SpaceX/wiki/faq/mars#wiki_what_will...
> Is it possible or we would have to generate one?
The most promising plan I've heard of is to create one using a satellite between Mars and the Sun.
https://phys.org/news/2017-03-nasa-magnetic-shield-mars-atmo...
The most promising plan I've heard of is to create one using a satellite between Mars and the Sun.
https://phys.org/news/2017-03-nasa-magnetic-shield-mars-atmo...
The idea that humans shouldn’t expand into the cosmos for fear of displacing some xenoplanktons is nuts. I’m not anti-xenoplankton, but I’m very pro-human. We will inherit the stars.
I thought the plan to bomb the poles wasn't just to melt ice, but also to restore the magnetic field to help trap the atmosphere from escaping, is that true?
Clickbait nonsense. Remove this article.
I understand that this isn't a very great article, but like I thought would happen, it started a nice discussion here. I love the quality of comments on HN.
tldr; The author wishes to speak for "the world" but only shares an opinion with people who would not be interested in risking, indeed, devoting their lives to forging civilization in an inhospitable environment.
Truth be told, lots of people would be interested in giving it a shot. This leaves the idea in a space of political hazard, as a high risk zone for cults of various flavors, each according to leaders that manage to establish themselves or stir vectors of internal influence.
Truth be told, lots of people would be interested in giving it a shot. This leaves the idea in a space of political hazard, as a high risk zone for cults of various flavors, each according to leaders that manage to establish themselves or stir vectors of internal influence.
The best I could find as to why colonizing mars is unlikely:
> But according to a new study, published in Nature Astronomy, Mars has lost so much of its potential greenhouse gases to space over billions of years that there is now no possibility of transforming the remaining atmosphere into a breathable one with available technology.
... of course terraforming Mars would be difficult with available technology. Certainly the author doesn't imagine technological process standing still?
On the second stipulation, that colonizing Mars is a "bad idea," could we please get there first then figure out the ethical issues? Does the author really think we should have a perfectly correct ethical plan of moving off of the planet?